Mehta Surbhi, Kesari Anubhav, Tomar Mohit, Sharma Urvashi, Sagar Preeti, Nakum Pooja, Rao Kumuda
Prosthodontics and Crown & Bridge, Inderprastha Dental College & Hospital, Ghaziabad, IND.
Prosthodontics and Crown & Bridge, Subharti Dental College, Meerut, IND.
Cureus. 2023 Jul 11;15(7):e41691. doi: 10.7759/cureus.41691. eCollection 2023 Jul.
Background and objective Cement-retained prostheses have replaced screw-retained prostheses as the preferred restoration in recent years in order to overcome the latter's limitations. In this study, four different luting cements were compared to evaluate their efficacy on the retention of cement-based metal crowns to implant abutments. Materials and methods In the right and left first molar regions, four implant analogs (Internal Hex, Adin Dental Implant Systems Ltd., Tel-Aviv, Israel) were screwed into epoxy resin casts (Araldite CY 230-1 IN, India) that were positioned perpendicular to the cast's plane. Four metal copings were created and cemented. Group A: polycarboxylate cement (DUR) (DurelonTM, 3M Espe, St. Paul, MN); Group B: PANAVIA™ F 2.0 dual-cure resin cement (Kuraray America, Inc., New York, NY); Group C: resin-modified glass ionomer (3M™ RelyX™ Luting, 3M Espe); and Group D: non-eugenol temporary resin cement (Kerr-Temp, KaVo Kerr, Brea, CA) were used to cement crowns. To check the retention capacity, samples were put through a pull-out test on an Instron universal testing machine (TSI‑Tecsol, Bengaluru, India) with a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. Each coping's de-cementing load was noted, and average values for every sample were computed and statistically analyzed. Results The findings demonstrated that non-eugenol temporary resin implant cement has the lowest retention value at 138.256 N, followed by resin-modified glass ionomer cement at 342.063 N, polycarboxylate luting cement at 531.362 N, and resin cement at 674.065 N. The average difference in retentive strength across all four groups was statistically very significant (p=0.001). Conclusion Based on our findings, non-eugenol temporary resin implant cement enables simple retrievability of the prosthesis in the event of a future failure and is appropriate for implant restorations with cement retention. Also, cements made of polycarboxylate and resin have the highest retention values.
背景与目的 近年来，为克服螺钉固位修复体的局限性，水泥（黏固剂）固位修复体已取代螺钉固位修复体成为首选修复方式。在本研究中，对四种不同的黏固水门汀进行比较，以评估它们对水泥基金属冠与种植体基台固位的效果。材料与方法 在左右第一磨牙区域，将四个种植体代型（内六角，Adin牙科种植系统有限公司，以色列特拉维夫）拧入垂直于铸型平面放置的环氧树脂铸型（Araldite CY 230 - 1 IN，印度）中。制作并黏固四个金属基底冠。A组：聚羧酸锌水门汀（DUR）（DurelonTM，3M Espe，美国明尼苏达州圣保罗）；B组：PANAVIA™ F 2.0双固化树脂水门汀（可乐丽美国公司，纽约）；C组：树脂改性玻璃离子水门汀（3M™ RelyX™ Luting，3M Espe）；D组：非丁香酚临时树脂水门汀（Kerr - Temp，卡瓦科尔公司，美国加利福尼亚州布雷亚）用于黏固冠。为检查固位能力，将样本在Instron万能材料试验机（TSI - Tecsol，印度班加罗尔）上进行拔出试验，横梁速度为0.5 mm/min。记录每个基底冠的脱黏固载荷，计算每个样本的平均值并进行统计学分析。结果 研究结果表明，非丁香酚临时树脂种植体水门汀的固位值最低，为138.256 N，其次是树脂改性玻璃离子水门汀，为342.063 N，聚羧酸锌黏固水门汀为531.362 N，树脂水门汀为674.065 N。所有四组固位强度的平均差异在统计学上非常显著（p = 0.001）。结论 根据我们的研究结果，非丁香酚临时树脂种植体水门汀在未来出现故障时能使修复体易于取出，适用于水泥（黏固剂）固位的种植修复。此外，聚羧酸锌和树脂制成的水门汀固位值最高。
